The part of Esthers opening statements that struck me a particularly
felonious and grossly disingenuous is a follows:
"Mr. Chairman, I regret that the title of today's hearing ("Is
ICANN Out of Control?") conveys an erroneous impression about what ICANN
is and what it is doing. Even more seriously, the title of the hearing
tends to distract attention from the truly fundamental issue before this
Subcommittee: How will the Internet's plumbing be managed? More to the
point, will the coordination of the Internet's key technical functions
be administered (1) by the world's governments and bureaucrats, (2) by
a private company pursuing its own private economic interests, or (3) by
the global Internet community as a whole? ICANN represents a strong endorsement
of option (3), a consensus-based private-sector vehicle through which the
Internet community – engineers and entrepreneurs, businesses and academics,
non-profits and individuals alike – will coordinate Internet names and
numbers. The fact that these hearings are taking place today under this
title, however, is stark evidence that this issue – how will the Internet's
plumbing be managed? – is still in doubt."

This particular part of Esther's comments are specifically
significant
in that she well knows that she is being less than honest here, and
that
no member of the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board has in any significant
engaged in meaningful debate of discussion other than to attempt
to "Dictate" what the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board wants to
see. This
on it's face is NOT in keeping with her stated desire of "ICANN
represents a strong endorsement of option (3), a consensus-based private-sector
vehicle through which the Internet community – engineers and entrepreneurs,
businesses and academics, non-profits and individuals alike – will coordinate
Internet names and numbers", in particular. I find this utterly
amazing.... Furthermore I would
add that as such, the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board is therefore NOT
following
the guiding principals in the White Paper as Esther Dyson states, and
is
also far outside of the MoU as well...

Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:

Esther Dyson's testimony before the House Commerce
Committee of July 22 is
available at: